Hmm. An expansion centered around trade and more diplomacy options would be great (I really miss foreign trade routes). "One World" doesn't sound like that's it, though? If it's focused on late game, meh.

Was recently thinking about (and wanting) another expansion pack, Gods and Kings has been fantastic; it's really restoked my love for the game. Picked up what DLC remained to continue to support more ventures like this.

I love the game, but after my first full match I immediately set city states to 0 afterwards, and that was the biggest addition from 4. Warfare is much, much better in Civ V though so eh.

So much this. City states are a big stains in my games in the middle of my empire.

I'm not just beating my chest out of ignorance here, I've got 200 hours clocked on Civ V. I feel like my complaints are at least somewhat legitimate. Like there being open land that isn't a lonely island well into the ADs, like, 1000 AD+, no matter the game setting is, due to a combination of how cultural expansion works, and how cities are basically a net drain that lock you onto one specific victory path, should you expand.

Then there's how cultural policies work, which almost always favors smaller empires over larger ones. Expanding past 3 cities is the equivalent of striking the possibility of a cultural victory from your grasp, short of snagging EVERY wonder and EVERY civic at just the right times(incredibly early), so much so that you have to have the idea of winning culturally from the very get-go to get anywhere.

There's no expanding and building up anymore, no diplomination, you're either out to conquer the world, or you're not. Expansion is near useless unless you're specifically trying to win by conquest. Every civilization is your enemy; you can have no friends, because ultimately, the vote of a city state is equal to the vote of your ally, if they haven't already stabbed you in the back by the time the diplomatic victory option is available.

Individually, these things may not bother me so much, but eh. They build on top of each other, to make the experience a lot less fun. Despite my 200 hours, I've only ever beaten one game of Civ V due to my lack of enjoyment, no matter how much I've tried to find enjoyment in the differences that make Civ V what it is.

I love that fact that I can build farms on anything with a water source, I like the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the changes to how civilizations work(Civilization traits, leaders traits, and so on), although I do miss multiple leaders. The naval game is leagues better than Civ IV, and I even like how happiness is the hard limit on expansion. My complaints are more on how they don't mesh all that well :/

Sorry to sort of derail, but like I said, I've still got hope that Civ V can grow on me, and I hope to be proven right.

So much this. City states are a big stains in my games in the middle of my empire.

I'm not just beating my chest out of ignorance here, I've got 200 hours clocked on Civ V. I feel like my complaints are at least somewhat legitimate. Like there being open land that isn't a lonely island well into the ADs, like, 1000 AD+, no matter the game setting is, due to a combination of how cultural expansion works, and how cities are basically a net drain that lock you onto one specific victory path, should you expand.

Then there's how cultural policies work, which almost always favors smaller empires over larger ones. Expanding past 3 cities is the equivalent of striking the possibility of a cultural victory from your grasp, short of snagging EVERY wonder and EVERY civic at just the right times(incredibly early), so much so that you have to have the idea of winning culturally from the very get-go to get anywhere.

There's no expanding and building up anymore, no diplomination, you're either out to conquer the world, or you're not. Expansion is near useless unless you're specifically trying to win by conquest. Every civilization is your enemy; you can have no friends, because ultimately, the vote of a city state is equal to the vote of your ally, if they haven't already stabbed you in the back by the time the diplomatic victory option is available.

Individually, these things may not bother me so much, but eh. They build on top of each other, to make the experience a lot less fun. Despite my 200 hours, I've only ever beaten one game of Civ V due to my lack of enjoyment, no matter how much I've tried to find enjoyment in the differences that make Civ V what it is.

I love that fact that I can build farms on anything with a water source, I like the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the changes to how civilizations work(Civilization traits, leaders traits, and so on), although I do miss multiple leaders. The naval game is leagues better than Civ IV, and I even like how happiness is the hard limit on expansion. My complaints are more on how they don't mesh all that well :/

Sorry to sort of derail, but like I said, I've still got hope that Civ V can grow on me, and I hope to be proven right.

Diplomacy has always seemed way too simplistic in civ games to me honestly, not complex enough and the ai has the memory of a bi-polar goldfish. Hundreds of years of peace, trades, etc. and then another friendly civ lets you know they're plotting against you (wtf china). Not nearly enough substance here.

So much this. City states are a big stains in my games in the middle of my empire.

I'm not just beating my chest out of ignorance here, I've got 200 hours clocked on Civ V. I feel like my complaints are at least somewhat legitimate. Like there being open land that isn't a lonely island well into the ADs, like, 1000 AD+, no matter the game setting is, due to a combination of how cultural expansion works, and how cities are basically a net drain that lock you onto one specific victory path, should you expand.

Then there's how cultural policies work, which almost always favors smaller empires over larger ones. Expanding past 3 cities is the equivalent of striking the possibility of a cultural victory from your grasp, short of snagging EVERY wonder and EVERY civic at just the right times(incredibly early), so much so that you have to have the idea of winning culturally from the very get-go to get anywhere.

There's no expanding and building up anymore, no diplomination, you're either out to conquer the world, or you're not. Expansion is near useless unless you're specifically trying to win by conquest. Every civilization is your enemy; you can have no friends, because ultimately, the vote of a city state is equal to the vote of your ally, if they haven't already stabbed you in the back by the time the diplomatic victory option is available.

Individually, these things may not bother me so much, but eh. They build on top of each other, to make the experience a lot less fun. Despite my 200 hours, I've only ever beaten one game of Civ V due to my lack of enjoyment, no matter how much I've tried to find enjoyment in the differences that make Civ V what it is.

I love that fact that I can build farms on anything with a water source, I like the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the changes to how civilizations work(Civilization traits, leaders traits, and so on), although I do miss multiple leaders. The naval game is leagues better than Civ IV, and I even like how happiness is the hard limit on expansion. My complaints are more on how they don't mesh all that well :/

Sorry to sort of derail, but like I said, I've still got hope that Civ V can grow on me, and I hope to be proven right.

What difficulty do you usually play at? I noticed most of the people who liked G&K mentioned that higher level play at the harder difficulties was where most of the improvement was, though it may be subtle in many cases.

Like there being open land that isn't a lonely island well into the ADs, like, 1000 AD+, no matter the game setting is, due to a combination of how cultural expansion works, and how cities are basically a net drain that lock you onto one specific victory path, should you expand.

Massive expansion works for some enemy AI and not for some others. It works for some players and doesn't work for some others. Difficulty levels with more aggressive AI and AI that explicitly expands will consume all of that land if they have the economy to handle it. Infinite City Spam was a big problem for previous Civ games and Vanilla Civ V. It being less of a glaring problem in post patch Civ V is an overall plus.

Then there's how cultural policies work, which almost always favors smaller empires over larger ones

This is by design. If you want a cultural victory then you need to grow tall, not wide.

There's no expanding and building up anymore, no diplomination, you're either out to conquer the world, or you're not. Expansion is near useless unless you're specifically trying to win by conquest.

And that may be because conquest and expansion are linked?

Every civilization is your enemy; you can have no friends, because ultimately, the vote of a city state is equal to the vote of your ally, if they haven't already stabbed you in the back by the time the diplomatic victory option is available.

Diplomacy is sketchy and requires you to learn behavior for the various AI and pay attention to how they act, who they friend with, who they denounce, and your relationship with luxuries and supplies if the two of you share a border.

I regularly play on Emperor and Immortal and can navigate the diplomatic waters without too much trouble.

Individually, these things may not bother me so much, but eh. They build on top of each other, to make the experience a lot less fun. Despite my 200 hours, I've only ever beaten one game of Civ V due to my lack of enjoyment, no matter how much I've tried to find enjoyment in the differences that make Civ V what it is.

Seems like your problem is that you want to be able to play the game in any fashion and be able to win the game in any fashion. You can't. This is by design, otherwise there's not high end game play. There would be no variety if I could play the game the exact same way over and over again and just arbitrarily choose the way I want to win. (Oh I have X amount of cities, and Y amount of Gold I think I'll click on Diplomatic Victory this time).

I love that fact that I can build farms on anything with a water source

Farms can be built on tiles without a water source.

I have close to 500 hours. I love City States and the way you can use them to fuck with the world.

So much this. City states are a big stains in my games in the middle of my empire.

I'm not just beating my chest out of ignorance here, I've got 200 hours clocked on Civ V. I feel like my complaints are at least somewhat legitimate. Like there being open land that isn't a lonely island well into the ADs, like, 1000 AD+, no matter the game setting is, due to a combination of how cultural expansion works, and how cities are basically a net drain that lock you onto one specific victory path, should you expand.

Then there's how cultural policies work, which almost always favors smaller empires over larger ones. Expanding past 3 cities is the equivalent of striking the possibility of a cultural victory from your grasp, short of snagging EVERY wonder and EVERY civic at just the right times(incredibly early), so much so that you have to have the idea of winning culturally from the very get-go to get anywhere.

There's no expanding and building up anymore, no diplomination, you're either out to conquer the world, or you're not. Expansion is near useless unless you're specifically trying to win by conquest. Every civilization is your enemy; you can have no friends, because ultimately, the vote of a city state is equal to the vote of your ally, if they haven't already stabbed you in the back by the time the diplomatic victory option is available.

Individually, these things may not bother me so much, but eh. They build on top of each other, to make the experience a lot less fun. Despite my 200 hours, I've only ever beaten one game of Civ V due to my lack of enjoyment, no matter how much I've tried to find enjoyment in the differences that make Civ V what it is.

I love that fact that I can build farms on anything with a water source, I like the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the changes to how civilizations work(Civilization traits, leaders traits, and so on), although I do miss multiple leaders. The naval game is leagues better than Civ IV, and I even like how happiness is the hard limit on expansion. My complaints are more on how they don't mesh all that well :/

Sorry to sort of derail, but like I said, I've still got hope that Civ V can grow on me, and I hope to be proven right.

Definitely would like to see the return/expansion of outposts and whatnot, to allow you to acquire resources outside your borders. Trade and diplomacy are certainly areas that could be improved. One thing about the AI that bugs me is the almost constant requests for open borders agreements at a certain point in the game. There's absolutely no benefit to acquiesce on the player's end.

Definitely would like to see the return/expansion of outposts and whatnot, to allow you to acquire resources outside your borders. Trade and diplomacy are certainly areas that could be improved. One thing about the AI that bugs me is the almost constant requests for open borders agreements at a certain point in the game. There's absolutely no benefit to acquiesce on the player's end.

They're doing that in preparation for an invasion. So you're right. Unless you need access to their land, you should always turn them down.

What difficulty do you usually play at? I noticed most of the people who liked G&K mentioned that higher level play at the harder difficulties was where most of the improvement was, though it may be subtle in many cases.

Usually Prince, any higher and I just feel like the AI is blatantly taking advantage of some poor mechanics that I can't duplicate on lower levels. It stings, I used to play Monarch-Emperor in Civ IV :(

Originally Posted by Zuhzuhzombie!!

ed

Mmmmmmmmidunno

Massive expansion works for some enemy AI and not for some others. It works for some players and doesn't work for some others. Difficulty levels with more aggressive AI and AI that explicitly expands will consume all of that land if they have the economy to handle it. Infinite City Spam was a big problem for previous Civ games and Vanilla Civ V. It being less of a glaring problem in post patch Civ V is an overall plus.

I've yet to see massive expansion happen :/

Most of the games I've played, I quit by the end of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, because at that point, my victory is already laid out before me, while the AI continue to flounder(Prince player). There are huge gaps in between my cultural borders and those of everybody else. I don't expand, because the game favors tiny empires, and the AI, the AI don't seem to be able to grow past 4-5 cities at most until the industrial era hits, at which point they decide to city-spam.

The AI seems to chase war for the sake of war, rather than to use war as a method of expansion; they'll declare war on you despite being a good 15 tiles away from your borders and having space to drop two cities in between you and them. Land is simply there, but land is meaningless. I can attain any victory more easily as a smaller empire, conquest included, because new cities are more of a burden than a boon.

This is by design. If you want a cultural victory then you need to grow tall, not wide.

Well, duh, but that doesn't seem like sound design to me. I'm not going to bring history into this, because that inevitably ends with facepalming whenever someone tries to force history into a Civ discussion, but cultural victories are the exclusivity of smaller empires....kind of the opposite of what you'd think it should be. At the very least, I don't like the fact that there's solely one route to cultural victories.

And that may be because conquest and expansion are linked?

It's different from other Civilization games, where conquering your continent, or conquering your nearest neighbor didn't prevent you from aiming at a certain victory, and that's my complaint. It's rigid, and leaves little wiggle room at all. War is only useful for defending, because the opportunity cost of conquering a nearby Civ isn't worth the trade-off if you're chasing a victory.

Diplomacy is sketchy and requires you to learn behavior for the various AI and pay attention to how they act, who they friend with, who they denounce, and your relationship with luxuries and supplies if the two of you share a border.

I regularly play on Emperor and Immortal and can navigate the diplomatic waters without too much trouble.

I recall the diplomacy being lamented heavily pre-Gods and Kings on CivFanatics, and I really haven't gone back there in a while. The AI are still unpredictable as far as I can tell, and will still backstab you even if you bend over backwards to appease them. A common meme I see is that you can make Gandhi your best friend, but that he will still nuke you by endgame.

What I'm lamenting here is how useless the AI are when it comes to building allies. Sure, you can learn how to skirt around them and avoid issues, but that's a weakness of the game's diplomatic system, than anything.

Seems like your problem is that you want to be able to play the game in any fashion and be able to win the game in any fashion. You can't. This is by design, otherwise there's not high end game play. There would be no variety if I could play the game the exact same way over and over again and just arbitrarily choose the way I want to win. (Oh I have X amount of cities, and Y amount of Gold I think I'll click on Diplomatic Victory this time).

I can sort of agree that to an extent, I do. I'm used to being able to carve a certain victory type out of a situation with enough war and land, which isn't the case in Civ V. But like you said, that's more of an issue that I have with the design philosophy than anything else.

Farms can be built on tiles without a water source.

Right, I was thinking more specifically about being able to build them on hills. I love me some Terrace Farms :)

I have close to 500 hours. I love City States and the way you can use them to fuck with the world.

With the addition of G&K Civ V is probably the best in the series.

I've basically put my complaints in bold so that you can understand how I see it. I don't mind that Civ V does its own thing....I just can't enjoy that thing, which makes me sad.

I burned about 2-3 years' worth of high school on Civ IV, so not being able to repeat it in college has been a letdown to me. I still try, though.

I got Civ V and G&K two weeks ago and have been absolutely enthralled with it. I doubt I will have played enough of G&K by the time the expansion comes along to justify buying it (this is a game you play for months before you finally master it), but I will definitely be looking forward to seeing what changes they made. The addition of religion to G&K is pretty great and I feel like they have something big waiting for the next expansion.

I think you need to up your game to Emperor or Immortal. :) Pretty much anything I could say about the game is in regards to high difficulty play. It sounds like you're ready to play Emperor, which isn't difficult once you figure it out.

But yeah, I think you should step it up a bit. You'll enjoy the game more.

I think it is better, personally.

Same.

We can argue all day about game mechanics. Fine and dandy. But unequivocally Civ V def has the better UI.

I think you need to up your game to Emperor or Immortal. :) Pretty much anything I could say about the game is in regards to high difficulty play. It sounds like you're ready to play Emperor, which isn't difficult once you figure it out.

But yeah, I think you should step it up a bit. You'll enjoy the game more.

Same.

We can argue all day about game mechanics. Fine and dandy. But unequivocally Civ V def has the better UI.

You're probably right, in that it most likely would help. I'll have to do it when I get another urge to try my luck at Civ V again, it happens like clockwork every few months or so.

Even if One World turns out to not be an expansion, well, at least you guys may have convinced a defeated Civ IV player to give Civ V one last shot.

Civ IV took a while to round out into the beautiful butterfly it became, so I have high hopes. Gods and Kings was a significant improvement. In the future though, please no DLC civs. That shit is unconscionable

It's pretty lame some idiot CPU builds a permanent 2 population city with no resources or anything smack in the middle of territory and I can only go to war with him even though he's in the industrial age and I have giant death laser robots. I don't want to beat him down. That's bad for everyone, my people will be mad, who knows who he's allied with, and it's just not something I want to do.

With old culture I could just suffocate the little place with my country's Internet, health care, colleges, superior cathedrals and magnificent landmarks, and they'd be so envious they'd demand to be part of my country.

I don't tend to like war in Civ, and yet they're kind of forcing me to, where I used to be able to peacefully extend my empire using science, happiness and culture. I really miss that, and was kind of shocked it wasn't in Civ V.

I tried to get into Civ V mulitple times, and finally it caught me this year after I got Gods&Kings, and have put near 70 hours into it so far, and so signs of slowing down. A new expansion sounds great to me! Will be interested in learning what this exactly is.

It's pretty lame some idiot CPU builds a permanent 2 population city with no resources or anything smack in the middle of territory and I can only go to war with him even though he's in the industrial age and I have giant death laser robots. I don't want to beat him down. That's bad for everyone, my people will be mad, who knows who he's allied with, and it's just not something I want to do.

With old culture I could just suffocate the little place with my country's Internet, health care, colleges, superior cathedrals and magnificent landmarks, and they'd be so envious they'd demand to be part of my country.

I don't tend to like war in Civ, and yet they're kind of forcing me to, where I used to be able to peacefully extend my empire using science, happiness and culture. I really miss that, and was kind of shocked it wasn't in Civ V.

Probably my big problem with it.

That sort of cultural suffocation was one of the most satisfying aspects of Civ IV for me.

I'm honestly at a loss as far as how to even play Civ V right now. I have no idea how to deal with city-states.